Talk:Valerie Archer
Relationship to the beagle guy Removed: * It is possible that she was a descendant of Jonathan Archer, as it is mentioned that she comes from a long line of Starfleet officers, but no confirmation has been given for this. If we don't know, leave it blank.– Cleanse 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC) :I could go either way on this one, as the potential there is too obvious to ignore, but ultimately it is speculative.--31dot 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC) ::While purely speculative. It does raise the interesting questions of just how elaborate a back story 8472 created for each of their Human persona's. --A Pickering 19:13, February 19, 2010 (UTC) Why is this page here? How do we know that the Valerie Archer (or any of the others) impersonated by Species 8472 are based on "real" (as in in-universe-real) officers? There is no mention of an ACTUAL Valerie Archer, for all we know she and the others were just made up by the 8472 impostors. I'd like to nominate this page for deletion. --Nero210 03:48, February 19, 2010 (UTC) :I'd doubt this would be completely deleted, since if it was decided she wasn't real, it would them be worth mentioning at Starfleet personnel (illusory). - 04:05, February 19, 2010 (UTC) Ok so why not mention them over there? I've been told over and over that Memory Alpha is a strictly "canon" resource, so if that's true why are these articles here when they have not been seen and/or mentioned as "real" officers in any episode, only seen as impostors? We could note in the article for the 8472's that took these alias' that these officers may or may not be "real" in the background section or something. --Nero210 08:18, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::I think the assumption was that since they recreated every physical aspect of San Francisco exactly(to the point where Janeway was able to find a place in it) that they also must have recreated the people in it as well, although I don't think it was said specifically. I would support a merge with Illusory personnel on that basis.--31dot 11:19, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::: Oppose: Somewhere, somehow a severely misguided movement has begun on this site that is going to make this site completely useless to its readers. --Alan 13:57, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::When did it become "misguided" for a canon wiki to base its articles on canon? Do you have any comments on the actual, legitimate issue raised?--31dot 14:05, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yeah. I don't see how one page about the character we saw would be more useless than having the same information spread to two pages, where the character that was seen and not just "implied" (the 8472 impostor) isn't even the one that gets the non-disambiguated title. However, if that oppose is towards the actual merge target being suggested on the article, I think I agree. If anything, the two Valerie Archer articles should be merged together, not one of them merged with some arbitrary list article. -- Cid Highwind 14:15, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::I could support that as well, and it probably would be better.--31dot 14:17, February 19, 2010 (UTC) :I also don't have a problem with this just being merged with the other V.A. page, though there should still be a mention on the list, since we have it. - 14:26, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::: Indeed the latter, Cid, if the need be done. Currently the "real" person getting the "proper" link corresponds with the practice used with the changeling impersonators: Lovok (real, unseen) v. Lovok (Changeling, seen). --Alan 14:47, February 19, 2010 (UTC) :::: Oppose merge to Starfleet personnel (illusory), for previously stated reasons. As for merging the two Valerie Archer pages... I guess I can go for that, but then we will need to consider merging pages like Lovok with Lovok (Changeling). I don't think I can support that, though. --From Andoria with Love 19:07, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::In the case of Lovok, we know he existed- we don't know that with Valerie Archer.--31dot 19:42, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::: Um, I think we do know that she existed. I mean, unless we are expected to accept that Species 8472 is dumber than we've been lead to believe, then there is no way that they could magically pass of their "fakes" (and infiltrate Starfleet without setting off any red flags) unless the person they were passing off as was real. That's not speculation, that's the plot of the entire episode. I think we should use some common sense here. --Alan 20:03, February 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::Have to agree with Alan. The point of the episode was about replacing Starfleet officers. How are you going to get in high ranking officials like captains and admirals if no one has ever met who they are supposed to be before, nobody knows them? --OuroborosCobra talk 20:24, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::They were going to replace Starfleet people, but they hadn't done it yet. The whole thing was to train their people to do so. We don't know if the roles they were playing were made up or not. Personally, I think you are right and that these roles were based on real people, but that wasn't said in the episode. I thought that was the criteria for inclusion in articles. Alan states we should "use common sense", and I actually agree, but we have removed other similar examples from articles and entire articles because there was no explicit mention. We should not be picking and choosing which implications we want and which we don't.--31dot 20:40, February 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::Um, yes we do know what roles they were going to play. The entire point was to immerse themselves into the person they were in the simulation, to become that person. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:50, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm not sure I agree that it wasn't anything other than practice, but even if I did we should still put more emphasis on the being that we actually saw, as Cid suggested.--31dot 20:54, February 19, 2010 (UTC) I stand by my initial suggestion to completely delete this article all together after reading some of the posts here. The thing is we have no idea weather Valerie Archer was "real" or not, so therefore we can't list her as a canon officer but it maybe to presumptuous to list her as illusionary. So my idea is to delete this article, reword the Valerie Archer (Species 8472) article to say something like "Valerie Archer was an alias used by a member of Species 8472...." and note in the background section that Archer may or may not be a "real" officer and that the episode did not specify. Even if this article is moved to the illusionary personnel this site shouldn't list Archer as she presently is, since there is no canon reference to her. --Nero210 09:08, February 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::Just to avoid the ugly "d-word", your suggestion would actually be a merge (as has already been stated above), not a deletion. All content would still be kept (except for, perhaps, the fact that Valerie really exists - which might not be a fact after all), the edit history as well, and all incoming links would still lead to some valid article. -- Cid Highwind 16:16, February 20, 2010 (UTC) Umm...okay I really don't give a crap WHAT you call it (merge/delete/I don't care). My suggestion above is what I propose should be done. --Nero210 21:54, February 22, 2010 (UTC) ::::Thanks for not giving a crap on this page - this is totally appreciated! -- Cid Highwind 22:43, February 22, 2010 (UTC) When I said "I don't give a crap what you call it" I was referring to what you call my suggestion, not what you do with the page. Please actually read before responding because the context was pretty obvious. --Nero210 07:38, February 23, 2010 (UTC)